Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:10:19 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>, current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDCan Toolchain Summit Summary Message-ID: <20100601171019.GA64873@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20100601162332.GA35104@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20100531225732.GF31972@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <86sk57nmfl.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100601162332.GA35104@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:23:32AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:15:26AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> writes: > > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/201005ToolchainSummitSummary > > > > "No new functionality that requires clang/llvm." > > > > How about "No new functionality with non-trivial incompatibilities with > > clang/llvm"? > > That too. I'll add it to the real roadmap page once I create it. > > As long as people are willing to avoid the darker areas of gcc > misfeatures that shouldn't be a problem in general, but I agree stating > it as a target is a good idea. > You might add a first step to fix FreeBSD's libelf incompatibilities with other libelf implementations. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00381.html -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100601171019.GA64873>